<p>I'm thinking about applying to MIT early but MIT website says that applying early could also hurt me because the applicant pool for early action is so competitive.<br>
Here are my stats, should I apply early?
SATI: 2180 Math: 780 Reading and writing: around 700 (ones a 690 i think)
have done two summers of research (not a seimen semifinalist or anything like that)
Physics SATII: 730 Math level 2:800 USH:760
Indian Female from Virginia</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>A lot of people have good stats. Do you have other things that set you apart? Passions? Can you go into things you've done a little more?</p>
<p>but are my stats even ok enough to be considered for the EARLY round? or are they way out of league?</p>
<p>Piper's advice is more valuable than you appear to be giving it credit for. :)</p>
<p>Also, MIT's early round is much less cutthroat than other schools (Stanford comes to mind), partly because MIT's EA program is nonbinding, but moreso because that's the way MIT Admissions wants it to be.</p>
<p>All that being said, I would not lose any sleep over your scores. Focus on the other parts of your application; if you can get those together soon enough, there's no harm at all in applying early.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT website says that applying early could also hurt me because the applicant pool for early action is so competitive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also, on another note, where did you read this? That is simply not true, in my humble estimation and experience.</p>
<p>Well, if you get deferred and don't have anything significant to update (or, the updates come too late to impact your decision) then there's a strong chance you'll end up being rejected anyway and it will feel like you wasted time applying early in the first place (I regret not doing RD everywhere, or at least trying SCEA stanford).</p>
<p>But of course, this is completely anecdotal.</p>
<p>The early pool is indeed very competitive, but applying early is never going to hurt you. Around 70% of the early applicant pool is deferred to regular action, where early applicants are on totally equal footing with regular applicants -- there's no stigma to having been deferred, and about as many early applicants get in regular decision as get in early action.</p>
<p>I also don't know that I believe the early and regular applicant pools are much different stats-wise. The early pool probably has a smaller left tail in terms of stats distributions, but I doubt the median scores are much different.</p>
<p>I don't see a disadvantage to applying early, regardless of stats, unless you can't get an application together for November 1.</p>
<p>I am also curious to see the quote on the admissions site which makes you think applying early can be disadvantageous -- this is not the intent of any part of the website, and I'm sure MIT would like to clarify if you point out the confusing language.</p>
<p>
I really don't think most deferred EA students send updates, and I don't think updates are a critical tipping factor for a huge number of EA applicant RD admits.</p>
<p>And feeling like you've wasted your time is valid, but the OP feels that applying early will actually hurt him/her. Those are two different feelings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but are my stats even ok enough to be considered for the EARLY round? or are they way out of league?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your stats are comparable to mine when applying early action (I got in). But I think you're focusing too much on stats. I want to stress that most people applying to MIT have very good stats - I'm asking, what will set you apart in the applicant pool?</p>
<p>thanks for all the comments! I don't remember exactly where on the MIT website, but I remember reading about the competitive atmosphere of EA on the website.<br>
I do gynastics,diving, and science club, don't have time for much else.</p>
<p>If i'm concerned with now much financial aid I would get, would this be a reason to not apply EA? In other words, how long would I have to make a desicion if i were accepted EA?</p>
<p>You'd have until May 1, the same as Regular Action - the only time when financial aid really becomes a problem is for Early Decision, which is binding. MIT's EA just lets you know in December (or makes you wait until March). I think that you get your financial aid info at the same time as the RD students, though, which is why you get a tube - there's too much stuff for RD kids to fit it all inside one!</p>
<p>would ihave more of a chance getting rejected if i applied EA rather than RD?</p>
<p>Your essays and how you come across as a person (communication style)
will be a major tipping factor.</p>
<p>If by Indian you mean native American you have a massive advantage.</p>
<p>If you mean Asian-Indian keep in mind that last year EA I think had
~2-5 students of a specific gender roughly from the most competitive states
who could be classified as such.</p>
<p>VA is a somewhat uber-competitive state to begin with so competing on the
basis of personality (bubbly joy bringer, non-cnidarian) versus achievements
may be wiser?</p>
<p>The enthusiasm and tone of your recommenders will also matter.</p>
<p>Try to additionally send in fun supplementary material that makes the
reader's day.</p>
<p>
[quote]
would ihave more of a chance getting rejected if i applied EA rather than RD?
[/quote]
MIT rejects very few EA applicants -- about 15% -- and defers the majority to the RD round. Students who are rejected EA are students whom MIT feels would not be competitive for admission during RD.</p>
<p>Final question about EA promise...</p>
<p>Should I apply EA for the sole purpose of knowing if I get accepted or rejected even if I will still need to wait for RD at the other schools to make my final decision?</p>
<p>Many people do this -- this is why MIT's program is early action, not early decision. They are not trying to lock anyone into attending MIT, just letting them know earlier and possibly taking some of the pressure off.</p>